ISSUE: W/N defendant can be held criminally responsible who, by reason of a mistake as to the

facts in relation to Article 4 of the revised Penal code?

FACTS:

1. Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at "Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort Mc Kinley, Rizal
Province, and at the same place Pascual Gualberto, deceased, was employed as a house
boy or muchacho. "Officers' quarters No. 27" as a detached house situates some 40 meters
from the nearest building, and in August, 19087, was occupied solely as an officers' mess or
club. No one slept in the house except the two servants, who jointly occupied a small room
toward the rear of the building, the door of which opened upon a narrow porch running along
the side of the building, by which communication was had with the other part of the house.
2. The entrance to the house where the two slept were covered by heavy vines which hampered
visibility from the inside of the house. There was only a door and a small window in the said
house.
3. August 14, 1908 About 10 pm: Ah Chong, a cook was suddenly awakened by some trying to
force open the door of the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice, "Who is there?" He
heard no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open
by someone bent upon forcing his way into the room. The defendant, fearing that the
intruder was a robber or a thief, leaped to his feet and called out. "If you enter the room, I will
kill you." At that moment he was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair (thought
to be an unlawful aggression) which had been placed against the door. Seizing a common
kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder
who, it afterwards turned out, was his roommate, Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho
who in the spirit of mischief was playing a trick on him.
4. . August 14, 1908 About 10 pm: Ah Chong, a cook was suddenly awakened by some trying
to force open the door of the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice, "Who is there?" He
heard no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open
by someone bent upon forcing his way into the room. The defendant, fearing that the
intruder was a robber or a thief, leaped to his feet and called out. "If you enter the room, I will
kill you." At that moment he was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair (thought
to be an unlawful aggression) which had been placed against the door. Seizing a common
kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder
who, it afterwards turned out, was his roommate, Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho
who in the spirit of mischief was playing a trick on him

5. There had been several robberies in Fort McKinley not long prior to the date of the incident
just described, one of which took place in a house in which the defendant was employed as
cook; and as defendant alleges, it was because of these repeated robberies he kept a knife
under his pillow for his personal protection.
6. The deceased and the accused, who roomed together and who appear to have on friendly
and amicable terms prior to the fatal incident, had an understanding that when either
returned at night, he should knock at the door and acquiant his companion with his identity.
7. The defendant then and there admitted that he had stabbed his roommate, but said that he
did it under the impression that Pascual was "a ladron" because he forced open the door of
their sleeping room, despite defendant's warnings.
 8. The defendant was charged with the crime of assassination, tried, and found guilty by the
trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced to six years
and one day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed by law.
9. At the trial in the court below the defendant admitted that he killed his roommate, Pascual
Gualberto, but insisted that he struck the fatal blow without any intent to do a wrongful act, in
the exercise of his lawful right of self-defense.

Article 8 of the Penal Code provides that —

The following are not delinquent and are therefore exempt from criminal liability:

He who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided there are the following attendant
circumstances:

(1) Illegal aggression.

(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

HELD:

The court ruled that he is not guilty of the crime of Homicide. As the defendant had no intent to commit
the crime and he was under the lawful excercise of his right to self defense. As thus the case was
reversed in favour of the defendant.

For the following reasons

1. No one, under such circumstances, would doubt the right of the defendant to resist and repel
such an intrusion, and the thief having forced open the door notwithstanding defendant's
thrice-repeated warning to desist, and his threat that he would kill the intruder if he persisted
in his attempt, it will not be questioned that in the darkness of the night, in a small room, with
no means of escape, with the thief advancing upon him despite his warnings defendant
would have been wholly justified in using any available weapon to defend himself from such
an assault, and in striking promptly, without waiting for the thief to discover his whereabouts
and deliver the first blow. (Although it was proven that the alleged thief was not a ladron. The
court believes there can be but one answer, and hold that under such circumstances there is
no criminal liability, provided always that the alleged ignorance or mistake or fact was not
due to negligence or bad faith.
2. Ignorance or mistake of fact, if such ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to
negative a particular intent which under the law is a necessary ingredient of the
offense charged (e.g., in larcerny, animus furendi; in murder, malice; in crimes intent)
"cancels the presumption of intent," and works an acquittal; except in those cases
where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions touching
criminal negligence; and in cases where, under the provisions of article 1 of the Penal
Code one voluntarily committing a crime or misdeamor incurs criminal liability for any
wrongful act committed by him, even though it be different from that which he
intended to commit. (Emphasis on the bold crucial yan!!)
 3. Acts constituting the crime or offense must be committed with malice or with criminal intent in
order that the actor may be held criminally liable
EX: it appears that he is exempted from liability under one or other of the express provisions
of article 8 of the code.

4. Also Article 1 of the Penal Code is as follows:

Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and ommissions punished by law.

Acts and omissions punished by law are always presumed to be voluntarily unless the
contrary shall appear.

An person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even
though the wrongful act committed be different from that which he had intended to commit.

The celebrated Spanish jurist Pacheco, discussing the meaning of the word "voluntary" as used in
this article, say that a voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act, and roundly asserts
that without intention (intention to do wrong or criminal intention) there can be no crime; and that the
word "voluntary" implies and includes the words "con malicia," which were expressly set out in the
definition of the word "crime" in the code of 1822, but omitted from the code of 1870, because, as
Pacheco insists, their use in the former code was redundant, being implied and included in the word
"voluntary. (Emphasis on the bold crucial yan!!)

LEGAL MAXIMS TO REMEMBER:The ancient wisdom of the law, equally with the modern, is distinct on
this subject. It consequently has supplied to us such maxims as Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit
rea, "the act itself does not make man guilty unless his intention were so;" Actus me incito factus non
est meus actus, "an act done by me against my will is not my act;" and others of the like sort. In this,
as just said, criminal jurisprudence differs from civil.